This week's topic: President Trump nominated Boulder County resident Neil Gorsuch to fill the late Antonin Scalia's seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Your thoughts?
Unprincipled Senate obstructionists deserve every brickbat tossed their way for refusing to hold a hearing on Merrick Garland's nomination. However, Sen. McConnell will use the nuclear option to seat Neil Gorsuch, despite a predictable and easily justified Democratic filibuster.
Conservatives who short-listed Judge Gorsuch hope he will pull Justice Kennedy further to the right. Some even think appointing his former clerk may encourage Justice Kennedy to retire, giving President Trump another seat to fill — this time, with an even more conservative judge.
Based on what friends and colleagues tell us, Judge Gorsuch is a good and decent man who also happens to be a gifted jurist In accepting the nomination, Judge Gorsuch said, "I am acutely aware of my own imperfections." Such lack of hubris from someone whose life and career has benefited from every advantage is refreshing.
Judge Gorsuch peels back the layers of each case carefully, with precise argument and elegant prose (read Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 834 F.2d 1142 (10th Cir. 2016)). He strongly believes executive branch overreach violates the Constitution's separation of powers, citing The Federalist No. 47 (James Madison), "(t)he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
Articulate defense of our Constitution's limits on the exercise of executive power matters more today than ever before. Give him a hearing. Maybe the seat. Gird for battle over the next opening.
Ed Byrne, edbyrne@smartlanduse.com
A colleague once told me that Democrats think Rebublicans are mean and Republicans think Democrats are stupid. When President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, Republican senators, who were the majority, refused to move the nomination forward in any way. They refused to hold a confirmation hearing. Many senators would not even meet with Judge Garland. Nearly a year has passed without the court vacancy being filled.
The Republicans went even further. In the event Hillary Clinton won the election, they would block any Supreme Court appointments throughout her entire term. It was fine with them if the court was short the full panel of nine justices permanently — or at least until a Republican president was elected. They did not appear to suffer any qualms about what was best for the country.
This was the same group whose sole mission during the Obama administration was to block any meaningful legislation. Again, without a whit of concern about the welfare of our country.
We now have the Republican president's nomination of Neil Gorsuch. Should the Democrats be more like the Republicans? Is it better to be mean or stupid? We all know how this will play out. Democrats will play by the rules and give Judge Gorsuch due respect. Republicans may see it as stupid but it is really a heroic finger in the dike as the Republican's nihilistic surge threatens to swamp us all.
Fern O'Brien, fobrien@fobrienlaw.com
I was so thrilled to learn the Supreme Court nominee is an unincorporated county neighbor I called my 91-year-old, politically astute and slightly old-fashioned mother with the news. She suggested, "You should take over a covered dish!"
The Democrats, continuing their nonstop post-election apoplectic fit, had already vowed revenge for the blocking of Obama's nominee, but thanks to the hapless Harry Reid, the Republicans have the so-called nuclear option which Trump has urged the equally hapless Mitch McConnell to use.
Sadly, too many people were subjected to teachers who denigrated the Founding Fathers as privileged, white slave-owners, and who taught that the Constitution they authored should be viewed as an outdated "living document" to be interpreted as suits the moment. To put it in perspective, these kids get their political opinions from Rolling Stone, their news from Comedy Central, think Bill Nye is a scientist and equate DJs with musicians.
Others, such as Scalia before him and now Gorsuch, are originalists — textualists, meaning roughly, "as written." Some feel, as I do, that the founders, with few exceptions, adjusted by amendments, got it right. Many feel, as does Gorsuch, that the charge of a judge is to follow, not interpret the law and legislate from the bench.
In the meantime the Gorsuch family will have to miss out on my delicious eggplant parmesan casserole. Sorry, Mom, the uptick of county sheriff activity out here suggests I shouldn't come knocking uninvited.
Don Wrege, donsopinion@gmail.com
I think President Trump may have made a mistake. While Neil Gorsuch certainly is a solid conservative and an "originalist," he also embodies characteristics that should make Trump uncomfortable. For example, speaking at his nomination, Gorsuch said that he was "acutely aware of [his] own imperfections," something that Trump would never admit. He went on, quoting Antonin Scalia, that a "judge who likes every outcome is very likely a bad judge," implying that he will not always vote the way Trump expects him to. But Trump won't be able to fire him.
All the commentary that I have seen in the local and national press from former colleagues and students, conservative and liberal, has been overwhelmingly favorable. This leads me to believe that this man could be a fair judge, not one who will hew to conservative dogma.
He will not be an activist judge — if it isn't in line with the Constitution, he probably won't support it. Maybe that is not a bad thing. It may mean that some rights questions will have to be decided in legislatures rather than in courts, but isn't that why we have separation of powers?
It is too bad that his appointment comes after a year of Republican shenanigans to avoid confirming Merrick Garland. The Democrats can't just let that pass. But after some delays, they should confirm Gorsuch. He might be one of Trump's best appointments, and one of his biggest mistakes.
Rett Ertl, rettertl@hotmail.com
I don't claim to know much about local judge Neil Gorsuch, but I do understand that the next nominee could be more conservative if the Senate rejects Gorsuch, because the Republican-controlled Senate could vote to rid the Senate of the ability to reject nominees. I know I don't want a more conservative judge.
When the administration makes a choice that the Republican Party calls moderate, it means compared to the alt-right. Using that method of categorization, almost anyone is moderate. I don't know any judges, but it would be best if the Supreme Court justices viewed the rights of all people as important. This includes women, people from LGBTQ+ communities, and folks with terminal illness. Gorsuch's record isn't good.
But what if preventing Gorsuch from being appointed would lead to a judge who always rules conservatively even if it is clear that the ruling is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution? While removing their own power to filibuster nominees in order to have a conservative judge would be immature, if there's anything a Trump presidency has taught me, it's that I should never have faith in large governments to act responsibly and intelligently.
According to our local reporter Alex Burness, Gorsuch "is not expected to call into question high-profile rulings on abortion, gay marriage and other issues..." Trump was not expected to win the presidential election, but he did. Maybe Gorsuch will be a great justice, maybe he won't. Time will tell.
Cha Cha Spinrad, spinrad@colorado.edu, https://twitter.com/chaspinrad
The Camera's editorial advisory board members are: Mara Abbott, Judy Amabile, Rett Ertl, Michelle Estrella, Fern O'Brien, Cha Cha Spinrad, Alan Stark, John Tweedy, Chuck Wibby and Don Wrege. (Ed Byrne and Steve Fisher are emeritus members.)
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.
